pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
PvXwiki talk:Trashed Build Concepts
Unnecessary. This doesn't help the build creator understand anything. -Shen 12:36, 18 February 2008 (EST) :It's not finished yet, reasons will be given under each concept in the list. This could also be an addendum to WELL — Skadiddly슴Mc슴Diddles 13:58, 18 February 2008 (EST) ::Any reasons will still be disputed by the build author. It's very impractical to compile a list. -Shen 13:59, 18 February 2008 (EST) :::I like the concept, but the opposition will be strong like shen said. that being said, everytime a SS rit is made we will likely have to argue the same points to them on why it's deleted and just being able to link to this would be very convenient. I think this is worthwhile, particularly once we get a few detailed reasons as to why they are trash. If the authors disputes them then so what, theyd dispute it on the builds talk page where itd be deleted anyway.Bob fregman 14:02, 18 February 2008 (EST) ::::Sure, I can see that. -Shen 14:04, 18 February 2008 (EST) :::Too bad for them. — Skadiddly슴Mc슴Diddles 21:09, 18 February 2008 (EST) ::::I totally agree.Bob fregman 22:02, 18 February 2008 (EST) 'Proposed Additions' #Res on a monk--Dark0805(Rant/ ) 19:55, 19 February 2008 (EST) #MM's in pvp(exceptions in HA)--Dark0805(Rant/ ) 19:55, 19 February 2008 (EST) #Warriors investing in Spear Mastery. -Shen 19:57, 19 February 2008 (EST) #Zaishen Farmers --20pxGuildof 20:02, 19 February 2008 (EST) #Crit Spears, Axes, Swords, and Hammers --20pxGuildof 20:02, 19 February 2008 (EST) :I would agree, so long as there is a "General Critical Weapon" build, similar to the General Barrager. - Knux 02:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT) #Any build with more than 6 serious investments in different attributes --20pxGuildof 20:02, 19 February 2008 (EST) :far too broad tbh. just because something like that may look inefficient doesnt mean it isnt.--Dark0805(Rant/ ) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (EST) #in general, classes trying be their secondary class with little to no advantage over just taking that secondary class as primary. –[[User:Ichigo724|'Ichigo'724]] 20:39, 19 February 2008 (EST) #Nearly all maintained enchantments in PvP(life bond is barely good).--Dark0805(Rant/ ) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (EST) #Bonders----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳimage:Shadowsin_sig.PNG 02:36, 27 March 2008 (EDT) #Mesmeles----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳimage:Shadowsin_sig.PNG 02:36, 27 March 2008 (EDT) #Emo's----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳimage:Shadowsin_sig.PNG 02:36, 27 March 2008 (EDT) #I'mNinja's ----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳimage:Shadowsin_sig.PNG 02:36, 27 March 2008 (EDT) # Rangers with Daggers --20pxGuildof 10:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT) # IW --20pxGuildof 10:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT) Why this proposal is full of fail I'm fairly opposed to this proposed policy after taking a look through peoples various comments on it. First off, we have WELL, it works. I could see this being an addendum to WELL with some modifications. Secondly, WELL specifies that the tag should not be removed by the Author until consensus is met, but anyone else can remove it. Making this new tag only removable by build masters or admins just adds to their workload with no justifiable reason. If someone removes your tag, discuss it, reach consensus, put it back. This tag is mostly going to be placed on builds by people inexperienced with the wiki. They are not going to realise without a VERY detailed discussion why. This discussion really needs to be at least of the depth of that found here or here. Now I don't agree with every point that The Gates Assassin has made in every one of his essays but he makes an attempt at a convincing argument. Let's look over some of the suggestions people have already made. * A/X Critical X builds Now this was refined to exclude some recent notable exceptions. This is exactly why this concept is flawed. Notable exceptions can be found such as Fox's Promise, Dark Apostasy and Grenth's Grasp. Also recently vetted was a Critical Axe build for PvE. That is one of the problems with this proposal, while some builds sound stupid on the face, there can be a place for them in very narrow specific situations. Mending has a place in farming builds, maybe someday someone will make a Healing Hands whammo for farming that is incredible. I doubt it, but it's possible. There is currently a Critical Hammer build in Trial that I seem to be the only person opposed to in it's current form. I sort of hope other people are being sarcastic but you can never quite be sure on the internets. * Nearly all maintained enchantments in PvP Strength of Honor works fine in Dual Frontliner TA teams with a support smiting healer. Triply Bonded Tree is a perfectly acceptable build also. * Res on a monk Bad in PvP. Fine in PvE. Rebirth is terrible in PvP but has it's place in PvE. In general the policy strikes me as inflexible, alienating and needlessly elitist. If you want a practical version of this policy make pages for each build at least as detailed as The Gates Assassin's, make an amendment to WELL, put a link to the discussion page in the reason tag. If someone can make one of these builds that disproves all the arguments, the WELL will be removed and the build vetted. In it's current state I see this policy as just frustrating new people and really the equivalent of voting the build 0-0-0 with the reason "YOU FAIL!". People have been wrong before. I imagine no one would complain if someone suggested "Dark Aura Bombers" go on the list based on past experience, but the recently nerfed über build has been possible since Nightfall, just no one found it yet. Everyone said DPS rangers sucked, but Pewpew Rangers smashed their way into the meta. Everyone said Critical Scythes sucked, Fox's Promise filled the meta. I don't see this policy as achieving anything except allowing lazy people to drop a tag rather than explain anything to a new builder. Misery 04:49, 27 March 2008 (EDT) :Uh, New users are supposeed to at least familiarize them selves with policies, so. If they read this policy they would know what build is just going to be the source of public mockery. Seeing as my page User:Shadowsin/Examples of how we should(nt) vote clearly show's how users react when they see one of these builds, which in effect is what you are accusing this policy of doing. It's not "Needlessly Elitist" as you claim because its not really about elitism, these builds keep popping up although they generally have been voted down 7 or 8 times before. How is this adding too much work to an admins/bms work load? They look at a build with a tag, see if it warrents it, take it off if it doesnt. It takes about 5 whole seconds to recognize one of these builds. WELL takes needlessly long amounts of time to get deleted because it requires user discussion, This would just get rid of it immediately and refer the author to this page, which should be filled with the reason.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳimage:Shadowsin_sig.PNG 10:43, 27 March 2008 (EDT) ::This policy doesn't say that the concept fails, the community does. When we've had 10 Dagger Rangers run through here and all get trashed, we're sick of slapping on WELL tags or voting 0-0-0's. This just takes concepts that are commonly made and commonly trashed and gets them trashed quicker. --20pxGuildof 10:46, 27 March 2008 (EDT) :::I have to say that so far as I can tell here, you've both just supported User:Misery's point somewhat. I'll take the turret ranger as an example, it wasn't until a recent update that these weren't ridiculed. After this they went from that sorry state of affairs to being ridiculed in a whole new way. On the assumption that this policy had been vetted in something close to it's current form it is not impossible to imagine that any such build would have been tagged on it's inception without a great deal of testing, just because the tag exists. I guess I could be saying here, should the policy be vetted (and I feel it would be useful in some way I'm just struggling to see how to keep it under control) should there not be a complete review of each of these tags on each update? Now that really does seem like a large amount of admin to be done by some people! Methinks I need to go on a clear English course at some point... I know what I meant to write, let me know if it makes any sense at all... GwaeFaer 11:06, 27 March 2008 (EDT) ::::You made sense. I kind of think you guys are focusing on the minor points instead of the relevant points. If you don't give very detailed reasons all your will get is a lot of QQing. You also risk falling behind the meta so to speak. People talk about this site essentially keeping record of the meta occasionally, another thing it does at other times is lead and direct the meta, which is somewhat more impressive and more likely to keep the site held in good regard. Trashing builds quickly on sight will quash innovation and let potentially good builds slip through the cracks. The fact that it takes a while to WELL or Trash a build is a good thing, it gives the build time to be seen. It's not just Dagger Rangers that appear on this site all the time, I think the other day there were like 4 mind blast Rodgort's spammers floating around, they still have to get WELLed. I see this policy as not gaining much with the potential to lose much more. Misery 11:18, 27 March 2008 (EDT) :::::Also, expecting people to read policies before they start Wiki-ing is funny. I read a fair few of them, but look at how often new people are being told to sign comments, only revert once, not blank talk pages, etc. Misery 11:22, 27 March 2008 (EDT) ::::::Reading policies!? BLASPHEMY! My series of 2 bans was all the policies I needed... --20pxGuildof 16:00, 28 March 2008 (EDT)